Electric cars

Martyn1981

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Again, I don't know what GM's problem with EVs is and I don't really care.

As to JLR's "re-start" as you put it, yes they are building an architecture from the ground up as a platform for their EV cars because it is simpler and easier to do than try to modify the current platforms to adapt to EV, and will produce a better result.

This is nothing new anyway, the last new platform JLR developed was D7a for Jag XE, XF, F-Pace and RR Velar, and D7u for RR Sport. New platforms are always in development

When it comes to production EVs and ICE cars are not different animals at all.

The majority of the building of the car is EXACTLY the same for EVs as for ICE.

The same process for Stampings (Press Shop), in fact some major components, ie the floor pan, will be a much simpler panel so easier to press.

The same BIW process, where the floor and body panels are welded/riveted/glued together.

The same Paint process.

Virtually the same Final Assembly and Trim process. In fact that is another part which will be easier at some points because they don't have to manoeuvre large, very heavy ICEs and gearboxes, diffs, exhaust systems etc into place, just bolt in a battery and a couple of relatively small and light motors.

Hiya, yes, I get what you are claiming about the theory, but I'm asking you why that doesn't match the practice? It's easy to say what you are saying, but I'm asking you to support it.

GM are old and big, yet they seem to have trouble.

Some time back I posted an article about PSA who (due to a lack of support for EV development) are asking for protection in the future from Chinese EV manufacturers as they don't think they'll be able to compete.

So, if EV's and ICE's are so similar, and you say older car companies know what they are doing, then why doesn't reality match your claims / theories?

PS - I note that you accept that ICE's and EV's need different platforms, yet at the same time you are also claiming that the cars are similar and the floorpan for an EV will be easier, did you really mean that?

PPS - Not caring about the reality of GM's Bolt production woes makes it easier to claim what you claim, but as I've tried to explain, I'm more interested in reality than theories.

almillar

Good - an actual "fuel efficiency" improvement, rather than simply "slap a bigger fuel tank in to stretch the headline range"

Gonna be difficult to improve it much. Electric motors are a mature technology, and aerodynamics can only be taken so far. Many are a long way down the path of temperature management of the battery, and heat exchangers for air con, so I can't see much better.

And this is similar to any MPG arguments - 'I get 60MPG in car x' - maybe, but you've a queue of angry motorists behind you!

I can do 6mpkWh in either electric car I've owned, doesn't mean I'd want to drive like that.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

I can do 6mpkWh in either electric car I've owned, doesn't mean I'd want to drive like that.

Tesla S managed about 600 miles, and the 3 managed about 700 miles (single charge) recently on a test track, but as you say, wouldn't want to be behind them at about 25mph.

Martyn1981

Saw an episode of Transport Evolved on the aCar, great idea/package.

Could This Electric Car Change The World?

NBLondon

I've today learned about this - a Nissan Leaf Hearse.

Now on the surface, it's a bit gimmicky and aiming at the green burial market - but there's a sensible idea underneath. A Funeral Director will have a yard/large garage etc where chargers can be set up; a full charge should last a typical day's duty. It will be quieter and probably better suited to a significant amount of slow driving than a large diesel- engined Merc/Daimler etc.

The question is what platform could you use as a basis for a full-size hearse with room for pall-bearers and matching mourner's cars? Tesla Model S? It's been tried Tesla Hearse & Stretched Tesla but these are one-offs. The other way that springs to mind would be custom body on a van chassis (Mercedes e-Vito and e-Sprinter?)

Which then triggers another thought... Ambulances. Charge at the station. I guess you'd need to balance the number of hours charging against the number of hours in use but you could install fast chargers and aim to synchronise charge stops with crew breaks/shift changes.

AdrianC

NBLondon wrote: »

I've today learned about this - a Nissan Leaf Hearse.

Now on the surface, it's a bit gimmicky

A bit?

It will be quieter and probably better suited to a significant amount of slow driving than a large diesel- engined Merc/Daimler etc.

Hybrid'll do that, of course.

The question is what platform could you use as a basis for a full-size hearse with room for pall-bearers and matching mourner's cars? Tesla Model S? It's been tried Tesla Hearse & Stretched Tesla but these are one-offs.

Already available from Binz, the largest European hearse manufacturer...
https://www.binz.com/en/vehicles/funeral/binz-e.html


It won't be long before there's EV versions of the traditional platforms such as Merc E-class and Jag XJ available, of course.

The other way that springs to mind would be custom body on a van chassis (Mercedes e-Vito and e-Sprinter?)

Van hearses have never caught on here, except for "private ambulances" (body transport vans) - and they may well be doing collection runs from the other end of the country.

Which then triggers another thought... Ambulances. Charge at the station. I guess you'd need to balance the number of hours charging against the number of hours in use but you could install fast chargers and aim to synchronise charge stops with crew breaks/shift changes.

Payload's your problem there, with all the equipment as well as the weight of the bodywork. Sprinter ambulances are already based on the 4.5t payload versions, rather than 3.5t, and I gather they sail pretty close to that weight limit.

Gloomendoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, if EV's and ICE's are so similar, and you say older car companies know what they are doing, then why doesn't reality match your claims / theories?

What do you think are the differences?

I have spent a fair bit of time in car factories and I cannot think of any significant differences between ICE and EV.

You could run them down the same production line, one behind the other.

RichardD1970

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya, yes, I get what you are claiming about the theory, but I'm asking you why that doesn't match the practice? It's easy to say what you are saying, but I'm asking you to support it.

GM are old and big, yet they seem to have trouble.

Some time back I posted an article about PSA who (due to a lack of support for EV development) are asking for protection in the future from Chinese EV manufacturers as they don't think they'll be able to compete.

So, if EV's and ICE's are so similar, and you say older car companies know what they are doing, then why doesn't reality match your claims / theories?

PS - I note that you accept that ICE's and EV's need different platforms, yet at the same time you are also claiming that the cars are similar and the floorpan for an EV will be easier, did you really mean that?

PPS - Not caring about the reality of GM's Bolt production woes makes it easier to claim what you claim, but as I've tried to explain, I'm more interested in reality than theories.

I'm not postulating any theories.

I don't know why the likes of GM struggle, may be down to boardroom politics or being stuck in a rut, or not seeing the need to change or any of a number of different reasons why they aren't willing to change. Old companies are sometimes reticent to change what they do.

The actual process of building an EV is the same as an ICE.

After 30 years working in the motor manufacturing industry, working in all technologies (except paint) I think I have a good idea what I'm on about.

Have you ever even been in a car factory?

The reality is:-

Every car company use different platforms for different model ranges (there is even sometimes a crossover between brands) regardless of ICE, EV or any other distinction you can make.

JLR use 4 or 5 I think (I know it was reduced from 8 when Tata took over).

The floorpan of an EV will be simpler to press as it will be a less complicated shape with fewer facets required for the routing and placement of transmission and exhaust components.

EVERYTHING ELSE will be built using the same techniques and processes as used now.

All that changes is the drive train which in a EV is much less complicated.

This isn't theory it's FACT.

Martyn1981

RichardD1970 wrote: »

The actual process of building an EV is the same as an ICE.

After 30 years working in the motor manufacturing industry, working in all technologies (except paint) I think I have a good idea what I'm on about.

This isn't theory it's FACT.

Nope, it's theory, since reality shows the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

The companies with little to no experience designing and building EV's are way, way behind.

If it truly was as simple as your theory, then all the 'big boys' would do it today, and do it well, but they are far behind companies like Tesla, Nissan and Renault.

PSA are even arguing for protection from the more experienced EV companies.

The interesting point, I believe, is when you said you weren't interested in GM and the Bolt, a car company, and car that seems to show the exact opposite of your theory, since they have the size, the age and the market share, but can't build a profitable competitor to the Tesla 3.

The floorpan of an EV will be simpler to press as it will be a less complicated shape with fewer facets required for the routing and placement of transmission and exhaust components.

A simpler floorpan, and less complicated shape on an EV, despite needing to encompass the battery pack?

I don't know why the likes of GM struggle, may be down to boardroom politics or being stuck in a rut, or not seeing the need to change or any of a number of different reasons why they aren't willing to change. Old companies are sometimes reticent to change what they do.

Not talking about an unwillingness to change, we were talking about an inability to make the actual car and sell at a profit when the similar, but better Tesla 3 has an estimated 30% profit margin.

Gloomendoom

To prove a point...

Magna has started contract assembly of Tata Motors' Jaguar's new I-Pace electric SUV.

This is the brand's first all electric model.

Magna Steyr said it was the only contract manufacturer building vehicles with different propulsion systems at one plant and on one production line.

Source